Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:33:09.896Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Injury Criteria Associated with Soybean Exposure to Dicamba

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2018

Matthew R. Foster  and
James L. Griffin
Matthew R. Foster
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
James L. Griffin*
Affiliation:
Professor Emeritus, LSU School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
*
Author for correspondence: James L. Griffin, LSU School of Plant, Environmental, and Soil Sciences, 104 M. B. Sturgis Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. (Email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research conducted in the field identified 14 injury criteria associated with dicamba (Clarity® diglycolamine salt) applied at 0.6 to 280 g ae ha–1 (1/1,000 to 1/2 of 560 g ha–1 use rate) to indeterminate soybean at V3/V4 or R1/R2. For each criterion, injury was rated using a scale of 0=no injury, 1=slight, 2=slight to moderate, 3=moderate, 4=moderate to severe, and 5=severe. Greatest crop injury 15 d after treatment (DAT) was observed for dicamba rates of 0.6 to 4.4 g ha–1 for upper canopy pale leaf margins (3.8 to 4.2) at V3/V4 and for terminal leaf cupping (4.1 to 5.0) at R1/R2, and for rates of 0.6 to 8.8 g ha–1 for upper canopy leaf cupping (3.8 to 4.8) and upper canopy leaf surface crinkling (3.4 to 4.4) at V3/V4. Injury 15 DAT was equivalent to the nontreated control for dicamba rates as high as 4.4 g ha–1 for lower stem base swelling at V3/V4 and for upper canopy leaf rollover/inversion and terminal leaf necrosis at R1/R2; for rates as high as 8.8 g ha–1 for leaf petiole base swelling and stem epinasty at R1/R2, and lower stem base lesions/cracking (V3/V4 and R1/R2 average); and for rates as high as 17.5 g ha–1 for lower leaf soil contact at V3/V4 and leaf petiole droop at R1/R2. The response to increasing dicamba rate observed for the injury criteria was in contrast to the steady increase in visual injury and plant height reduction rated as 0 to 100%. The moderate to severe upper canopy leaf cupping, pale leaf margins, and leaf surface crinkling, and terminal leaf cupping 15 DAT with dicamba at 0.6 to 4.4 g ha–1 corresponded to soybean yield loss of 1% to 9% for application at V3/V4 and 2% to 17% at R1/R2.

Keywords

Kevin Bradley, University of MissouriDicambasoybean, Glycine max (L.) MerrCrop injury assessmentherbicide-resistant cropsoff-target movementspray drift
Type
Weed Management-Major Crops
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , October 2018 , pp. 608 - 617
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Al-Khatib, K, Peterson, D (1999) Soybean (Glycine max) response to simulated drift from selected sulfonylurea herbicides, dicamba, glyphosate, and glufosinate. Weed Technol 13:264–270 Google Scholar
Andersen, SM, Clay, SA, Wrage, LJ, Matthees, D (2004) Soybean foliage residues of dicamba and 2,4-D and correlation to application rates and yield. Agron J 96:750–760 Google Scholar
Anonymous (2017) LSU AgCenter Pest Management Guides. http://www.lsuagcenter.com/portals/communications/publications/management_guides. Accessed: December 10, 2017Google Scholar
Auch, DE, Arnold, WE (1978) Dicamba use and injury on soybeans (Glycine max) in South Dakota. Weed Sci 26:471–475 Google Scholar
Bauerle, MJ, Griffin, JL, Alford, JL, Curry, AB III, Kenty, MM (2015) Field evaluation of auxin herbicide volatility using cotton and tomato as bioassay crops. Weed Technol 29:185–197 Google Scholar
Behrens, MR, Mutlu, N, Chakraborty, S, Dumitru, R, Jiang, WZ, LaVallee, BJ, Herman, PL, Clemente, TE, Weeks, DP (2007) Dicamba resistance: enlarging and preserving biotechnology-based weed management strategies. Science 316:1185–1188 Google Scholar
Bradley, K (2017) A final report on dicamba-injured soybean acres. Integrated Pest and Crop Manage. Newsletter 27(10). 2 pGoogle Scholar
Brown, RB, Carter, MH, Stephenson, GR (2004) Buffer zone and windbreak effects on spray drift deposition in a simulated wetland. Pest Manag Sci 60:1085–1090 Google Scholar
Carlsen, SCK, Spliid, NH, Svensmark, B (2006) Drift of 10 herbicides after tractor spray application. 2. Primary drift (droplet drift). Chemosphere 64:778–786 Google Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- and three- factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 Google Scholar
de Jong, FMW, de Snoo, GR, van de Zande, JC (2008) Estimated nationwide effects of pesticide spray drift on terrestrial habitats in the Netherlands. J Environ Manage 86:721–730 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Mortensen, DA (2012) Quantifying vapor drift of dicamba herbicides applied to soybean. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1023–1031 Google Scholar
Egan, JF, Barlow, KM, Mortensen, DA (2014) A meta-analysis on the effects of 2,4-D and dicamba drift on soybean and cotton. Weed Sci 62:193–206 Google Scholar
Fehr, WR, Caviness, CE (1977) Stages of soybean development. Special Report 80, Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Iowa State University. 11 pGoogle Scholar
Griffin, JL, Bauerle, MJ, Stephenson, DO IV, Miller, DK, Boudreaux, JM (2013) Soybean response to dicamba applied at vegetative and reproductive growth stages. Weed Technol 27:696–703 Google Scholar
Grover, R, Yoshida, K, Maybank, J (1972) Droplet and vapor drift from butyl ester and dimethylamine salt of 2,4-D. Weed Sci 20:320–324 Google Scholar
Heap, I (2017) The International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. www.weedscience.org. Accessed: August 8, 2017Google Scholar
Johnson, VA, Fisher, LR, Jordan, DL, Edmisten, KE, Stewart, AM, York, AC (2012) Cotton, peanut, and soybean response to sublethal rates of dicamba, glufosinate, and 2,4-D. Weed Technol 26:195–206 Google Scholar
Nandula, VK, Poston, DH, Reddy, KN, Whiting, K (2009) Response of soybean to halosulfuron herbicide. Int J Agron, vol. 2009, Article ID 754510, 7 p https//doi.org/10.1155/2009/754510 Google Scholar
Robinson, AP, Simpson, DM, Johnson, WG (2013) Response of glyphosate-tolerant soybean yield components to dicamba exposure. Weed Sci 61:526–536 Google Scholar
[US EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2006) Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Dicamba and Associated Salts. Washington, DC: US EPA. 165 pGoogle Scholar
[US EPA] United States Environmental Protection Agency (2017) Compliance Advisory: High Number of Complaints Related to Alleged Misuse of Dicamba Raises Concerns. https://www.epa.gov/compliance/compliance-advisory-high-number-complaints-related-alleged-misuse-dicamba-raises-concerns. Accessed: August 8, 2017Google Scholar
Wang, M, Rautman, D (2008) A simple probabilistic estimation of spray drift-factors determining spray drift and development of a model. Environ Toxicol Chem 27:2617–2626 Google Scholar
Wax, LM, Knuth, LA, Slife, FW (1969) Response of soybeans to 2,4-D, dicamba, and picloram. Weed Sci 17:388–393 Google Scholar
Weidenhamer, JD, Triplett, GB, Sobotka, FE (1989) Dicamba injury to soybean. Agron J 81:637–643 Google Scholar
White, SN, Boyd, NS (2016) Effect of dry heat, direct flame, and straw burning on seed germination of weed species found in lowbush blueberry fields. Weed Technol 30:263–270 Google Scholar